
- 



EW7 

.6 S3 



\ /p 



ME. BREESE, OF ILLINOIS, 



E 407 SPE" 

.B83 

Copy 1 

OP 



ON 



THE MEXICAN QUESTION, 



AND 



. 



THE TEN REGIMENT BILL 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1848. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1848. 



THE MEXICAN QUESTION, &c. 



The Senate having resumed the consideration of 
the Bill to raise, for a limited time, an additional 
military force — 

Mr. BREESEsaid: 

Mr. President: I never rise in this presence, 
upon the most ordinary occasion, either to explain 
or defend a measure purely local in its character, 
without some embarrassment; and that feeling is 
greatly increased, as you may well suppose, when 
questions of vital importance to the nation are 
under discussion, calling forth, as those have, con- 
nected with this bill, the best efforts of the most 
distinguished members of this body. Nothing, 
sir, but an overwhelming sense of the duty I owe 
to "the State which has honored me so much, and 
whose patriotism has been so signally exhibited 
from the very commencement of this war, and 
Whose people take the deepest interest in its prog- 
ress and success, could have broken the silence I 
•had imposed upon myself, so far as the mere object 
of the bill itself is concerned. It is upon those 
great topics, which throw the bill quite into the 
ishade, that I wish to express my opinions fully 
•and without reserve— premising, however, that 
they are my own individual opinions, for which 
neither the Administration, nor any member of it, 
nor the party with which I act, are in the slightest 
degree responsible. They have been formed after 
much careful deliberation and anxious inquiry, 
and with a desire solely to arrive at correct con- 
clusions^ and if they are unsound, or of wicked 
and dangerous tendency, or impracticable, they 
will find no echo in the public heart, and influence 
in no degree the public judgment. My State, sir, 
has a right to this expression from me, to enable 
it to judge if I properly sustain here the important 
relation their partiality has created between us, 
•and if I fully meet all the responsibilities which it 
imposes upon me. I have said, sir, that the people 
of that great and patriotic State take the most 
lively interest in this war, and in all the questions 
connected with it; and look with confidence and 
hope to some grand achievement as its final result. 
From its inception, on the first call to arms to repel 
• the aggressive act of Mexico, and to punish her 
for her injustice and her wanton invasion of our 
territory, the people there, with one heart and one 
mind, were found on the side of their country, the 
only strife among them being a generous rivalry 
as to who could best serve it in the hour of its 
need. Eight thousand of its choicest chivalry 
offered themselves at the call, of whom four thou- 



sand were accepted, who repaired at once to the 
field, with an alacrity never before manifested, Aid 
iri the campaign which followed, covered them- 
selves with undying glory. 

It was my fortune, sir, to be addressing the 
Senate at the last session, on the three-million bill, 
on the very day of the hard-fought battle of Buena 
Vista, when my thoughts, as they had often done 
before, turned to those noble spirits, my neighbors 
and my friends, who had left all the fond endear- 
ments of home — severing those dear family ties 
they knew so well how to appreciate — to do battle 
for their country in a foreign land, inspired only 
by the fervor of a generous patriotism, when I 
was prompted thus to speak of them: 

"They have proved, by the sufferings they have endurei>i. 
by disease, and by performing the most wonderful marchiSr. 
in modern times— advancing forty miles in a day, bivouack-- 
ing at night with half rations, and showing, by their discipline 
and prompt obedience to orders, that they can be relief upon , 
in any and every emergency ; and though it has beecdenied 
them to participate in the perils of the battle-field, ttajf have 
given the strongest assurances, that in it they wouU uotifaii,, 
to reap a full harvest of glory." 

• That prophecy, sir, was at that very- moment* 
fact; at that very hour they were gathering glory 
at the cannon's mouth — and so long as=Bue-na Vista 
shall be a familiar word — so long as the mountains 
there, in whose sight they fought and fell,. shall 
lift their summit to the sky — so Jsc.g • will 1 the val- 
orous deeds of the gallant lllmoiains- be remember- 
ed and rehearsed. At Cerro Gordo, too, sir, they 
exhibited like evidences of gallantry — exalting by 
their deeds, not only the character of their State, 
but of the whole country, to which they hat} so 
signally manifested their devotion- These troops, 
sir, were of the best blood of Che State, composed of 
gentlemen of character at home, eaeh one of whom, 
in battle, felt as if he had not only the character 
of his country to sustain, but' his own individual 
character, and that made tirem then — as they will 
be ever — invincible. And', air* so far as the imme- 
diate object of this bill is concerned, and in answer 
to the remark that the tw>ops cannot be raised by 
it in any reasonabte time, I should not fear to 
pledge myself that on its being known that it had 
become a law, one-lmlf of the whole number can 
be there instantly raised, of the same material and 
under the same inspiration. The people of that 
State, sir, are fully impressed with the justice of 
this war, and the denunciations indulged in here 
and elsewhere against the Executive as its author, 
will have no efiect upon them to turn them to peace, 
or to oppose the Government in any of its measures 



4 



to carry it on vigorously in the very heart of the 
enemy's country; and they are not to be appalled 
at the unfortunate results which, in the opinion of 
some Senators, may flow from it, nor can they be 
made to think they will be so dreadful as they have 
been depicted. I had hoped, Mr. President, from 
indications which I thought I saw when this bill 
was first reported from the Committee on Military 
Affairs, that it would receive the general assent of 
this body, and that those denunciations to which 
we have listened so long would have been reserved 
for some more favorable occasion, when the prog- 
ress of no great public measure would be impeded 
by them, and a better opportunity afforded for the 
most unlimited discussion and the widest range of 
debate; but in this I have been disappointed, and 
at the hazard of further delay, I must endeavor to 
repel these assaults, and place the Administration, 
and those who support it, right before the country, 
Wd furnish a justification for their and our conduct. 
Senators need not think this war is unpopular; in 
this they deceive themselves. Every successful 
war is popular; and bold declarations that this is 
unjust and unconstitutionally commenced will not 
satisfy those who are to pass upon our conduct. 
The people, sir, will not be deluded by such dec- 
larations: they will require of those who make them 
to sustain them by facts, by reasoning, and by fair 
argument; and I call upon Senators on the other 
side of the Chamber to demonstrate, if they can, 
with all their legal acumen, acknowledged ability, 
and power of investigation, why it is that the war 
is unjust and unconstitutionally commenced? They 
will reply, that it was by the removal of our troops 
to the bank of the Rio Grande; that such removal 
was an act of war; and being ordered by the Pres- 
ident, he acted therein in a manner not warrant- 
ed by the Constitution. This allegation involves, 
necessarily, the consideration of the question of 
boundary; and if it has been established — as I 
Sthink it has been — that the river was the true and 
only boundary of Texas, the right to have eur 
forces there, to prevent a threatened invasion, can- 
not be controverted. And here, sir, it will not be 
necessary to discuss this point, at length, inasmuch 
as the argument of my honorable colleague upon 
it [Mr. Douglas] has been most clear and con- 
vincing. He has shed such a flood of light upon 
it — has so brilliantly illuminated it — that none can 
.any longer be in error, or go astray, except from 
mere design and wanton perversity. I accord with 
him, sir, fully, in all his views on that point; and 
to show, sir, that it is not a sudden opinion and 
hastily formed, I beg leave to quote a few passages 
from the speech I had the honor to deliver in June, 
1844, on the resolutions of the honorable Senator 
• of Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] pending the treaty 
of annexation. After stating the principal facts 
connected with the history of Mexico and Texas, 
I said: 

"In 1835, Santa Anna, then a victorious general abandoning 
>the cause of republicanism, declared in favor of a central 
government by which the sovereignty of the Sutes was, in 
effect, ab dished, and all power, civil and military, consolida- 
ted in one man. Many of the States, as all " the old thirteen" 
did, took up arms in defence of their lights and of their sover- 
eignty, as guarantied by the federative system of lfc24. But 
the power of the usurper was irresistible. State after State 
was subdued, until finally, save in Texas alone of all the 
Mexican States, the sacred fire of liberty was extinguished ; 
there alone it was guarded with anxious vigilance. Texas 
refused to submit to the dictator, and resort was had by the 
people to resist his power to the same means our ancestors 



adopted, to free themselves from colonial vassaltfge am? 
maintain their independence. They never abandoned the 
Federal Constitution of Mexico, so long as a hope remained 
of its triumph, but battled manfully for it throughout the year 
1835; and in many a hard fought conflict the Texans were 
victorious. At the close of that year, a solemn declaration 
of the delegates of the people was published, in which it is 
asserted that they had recourse to arms in defence of the re- 
publican principles of the Federal Constitution of 1834 ; that 
they would adhere with fidelity to the Mexican Confederacy 
so long as it should be governed by the constitution and laws 
adopted for the protection of their political rights; and ap- 
pealing to other members of the Confederacy, pledged their 
aid to such of them as would resist the military despotism 
then being established within their borders. No other State 
but Texas dared to resi>t ; and she, unaided and alone, hav- 
ing no France to come to her assistance, as we had, defied 
and resisted the power of the usurper. A new convention 
of the people assembled on the 1st of March, 1836 ; and al- 
though the country was invaded by Santa Anna at the head 
of a numerous army, the Alamo at Bexar taken by assault 
though gallantly defended by a handful of men under the 
command of trie brave Travis, Crockett, and Bowie, who 
were all pot to death ; Fanning and his force captured, and 
treacherously and inhumanly massacred, and desolation 
brooding over Texas; in the mid-tofall this, a regularly organ- 
ized convention assembled, and published their " Declara- 
tion of Independence," formed a constitution to be submit- 
ted to the people for their approval, and i n fifty days thereafter 
— on the 21st of April, on the banks of the S:in Jacinto — 
proved their ability to maintain it, and rewrote it in charac- 
ters of blood." 

I then said, sir, that — ■ 

" The present government or supreme power of Mexico 
has no right to subjugate Texas. And here lam opposed by 
the admissions of alt, who have written and spoken upon 
this subject, that she has such right. If she has the right, 
whence did she derive it ? Has England a right to subjugate 
us if she can, by a war undertaken for that express purpose? 
No, sir; no nation has a right to commence an unjust war 
of aggression upon a peaceable neighbor, for the purpose of 
subjecting such nation to its power for the mere purpose of 
conquest. It is in violation of the law of God, and of those 
great principles of justice lie has established. 

" Texas was never a party to the present established Gov- 
ernment of Mexico. She was a party to her federative sys- 
tem, but not to her central despotism, and owes to it no 
fealtv. Hit history, as already recited, proves this ; and the 
conclusion is irresistible, that being in that position towards 
Mexico, she has a right to maintain it if she can ; and a war 
waged to drive her from it, and subjugate her to a power she 
has always repudiated, would be a warcommenced in wrong, 
waged unjustly, and its authors, aiders and abettors, should 
receive, as they would deserve, the execrations of the 
world." 

And, Mr. President, I entertain these opinions 
now; and I assert that the whole history of the re- 
lations of Texas with Mexico show that the for- 
mer was never a party to any other system of 
government, as acomponent part of the latter, than 
as a member of the Federal Republican system of 
1824. She resisted successfully the sway of the 
usurper of 1835, which she had a perfect right to 
do; and so would any one of the States of this 
Union possess this right, under similar circumstan- 
ces. I will take Maine as an instance, as that is a 
frontier State, and newly admitted into the Union 
of States on a federative system. How did she 
join it, and on what principles? That she was a 
sovereign and independent State, with a republican 
form of government, uniting her fortunes with 
other States, with the same forms of government. 
Now, suppose, sir — but it is hardly a supposable 
case — that all the rest of the States of the Confeder- 
acy, except Maine, should agree to abolish tho 
federative system and their republican forms of 
government, and establish a monarchy, or a des- 
potism, would they, united, have the right to coerce 
Maine, by force of arms, to do the same thing — to 
abolish her forms, and subject her to the control of 
a system of government radically different from the 
one she had joined ? No, sir, no. Maine would 



have a perfect right to declare and maintain her 
independence, if she could; and a war waged to 
subjugate her, would be a war waged in wrong. 
No Senator will deny this. 

Well, sir, this was the position of Texas, and, 
as I have said, she rewrote her declaration of inde- 
pendence on the bank of the San Jacinto, on the 
21st of April, 1836, in characters of blood; and as 
we point to the fourth of July, 1776, as the first 
year of our independence, and to the triumph at 
Yorktown as confirming it, so can Texas recur to 
the second of March, 1836, and to the victory of San 
Jacinto, as like memorable eras in her history. No 
sir, the usurpers of 1835, never did extend their 
conquest east of the Rio del Norte — they crossed 
it for that purpose, but were invariably unsuccess- 
ful; and that river was made the line beyond which 
they should not come. 

The independence of Texas, Mr. President, we 
all know, was manifested by adopting a constitu- 
tion and a name, as applicable to that division of 
the earth's surface composing the Republic of 
Texas. Her Congress met under this constitu- 
tion, and among the acts passed by it, is one of 
the 19th December, 1836, declaring the boundaries 
of the republic, as one of the independent nations 
of the earth, which was, upon the west, the west 
bank of the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its 
source; and this, in conformity with the treaty, 
pact, or agreement, made with the head of the 
Mexican Government — the usurper Santa Anna — 
immediately after the battle of San Jacinto. This 
act of Congress was a public act, and as such must 
be presumed to have been in the knowledge of our 
Government, in 1837, when the independence of 
Texas was acknowledged, and diplomatic relations- 
entered into with her. It gave to us, and to the 
world, notice of the extent of that republic — of the 
extentofthat portion of an independent sovereignty 
called Texas. But it is said, sir, that one nation 
cannot make a boundary for itself. As a general 
remark, it may be sustained by facts, as cotermi- 
nous nations usually establish their boundaries by 
treaty; but cannot a nation enlarge its boundaries, 
or prescribe a boundary for itself, without the con- 
sent of another coterminous nation? Suppose 
France, engaged in a defensive war with the neigh- 
boring Powers, should carry her victorious arms 
to the Elbe, and, by a decree, incorporate the con- 
quered countries within her dominion, and declare 
the Elbe, and not the Alps and the Rhine, her 
boundary, and could maintain it, would she not 
have a right to do so? So of Maine, sir, if she 
was separated from the Confederacy by the revo- 
lutionary acts of her sister States, remaining an 
independent State, capable of forming such rela- 
tions with the nations of the earth as their interests 
required, she protecting and sustaining herself, 
should she be invaded from the adjacent British 
provinces, and was able to drive her foe beyond 
the river St. John, and maintain her sovereignty 
and jurisdiction up to that river — declare it a part 
of her territory, and the leading nations of the 
world, who make the law of the world, should 
treat with her as an independent State, with that 
boundary — would not the right of Maine to that 
epiargement of territory and extension of boundary 
bea.nerfect right? If otherwise, I would ask why? 

Jjj<wi'id, France, Holland, and Belgium, two of 
i. ^certainly the leading Powers of the world, 
acknowledged the independence of Texas, with 



these defined limits, as a republic — as a nation of 
the earth, capable by its position of making war, 
concluding peace, and clothed with all the attributes 
of an independent sovereignty. I place much more 
stress upon these acts of recognition by the great 
Powers of the world than others seem to do, and 
I must confess, sir, they have had a controlling 
influence on my mind in forming my opinion. 
They declare, in effect, that the division of the 
earth called the Republic of Texas, with certain 
prescribed limits, is an indeoendent Power of the 
earth, and entitled to all the immunities of nations, 
of which the right to a boundary is one. Suppose, 
sir, this Government, France or England, had, 
after acknowledging the independence of Texas, 
entered into a treaty of alliance with her, offensive 
and defensive, would not we and they be required 
to defend her, up to the boundary she claimed, 
against an invasion from Mexico? Clearly, sir, 
this would be the extent of the bbligation under 
such a treaty. If this be so, then was our duty 
more imperative, after we had allured her to our 
embrace — had prevailed on her to embark her for- 
tunes with ours — to transfer her lone star, gleam- 
ing in solitary splendor, to our field of azure — to 
sink her nationality in our own — to yield her proud 
position as an independent nation to become a 
subordinate State; to defend her against all aggres- 
sion with the best blood of our people, to the last 
cent in our treasury, and with the whole might of 
the nation. We were bound, most religiously 
bound, to defend Texas in her entirety, and it was 
for that purpose, and with no other view, our 
troops were ordered to take their position on the 
western - limits of that State. An invasion was 
threatened. War had been denounced both before 
and after the annexation. Have Senators forgotten 
our efforts made in the fall of 1845, and in all sin- 
cerity and good faith, to prevent this resort to arms? 
Did we not, before that, assure Mexico, that in 
what we had done by incorporating Texas into the 
Union, we intended no unkindness to her — that 
we could not but consider Texas an independent 
nation, and the power of Mexico over it gone for- 
ever, and did we not propose an amicable adjust- 
ment of the matter, and seek to heal the wound 
inflicted upon her pride? And how were these our 
declarations, and this our attempt at adjustment 
by sending a minister to them on their promise to 
receive him, treated by that Power? We all know, 
sir, and it is useless to speak of them. Our min- 
ister was rejected — Mexico even refused to talk 
with him — refused to hear our propositions; and 
still persisted in her determination to repossess 
herself of Texas by arms; she never alleging at 
any time any other claim to Texas than the claim 
to the Sabine, and taking no exception to the posi- 
tion of our troops within that territory; for it will 
be recollected, that preparatory to receiving our 
minister, she only requested that our naval forces 
should be withdrawn from her coast, lest it might 
appear if she negotiated at all, it would be consid- 
ered she did so under a menace. She never desired 
that the army should be removed. 

If, sir, the right to Texas was a doubtful one, 
what was the duty of Mexico under such circum- 
stances? Certainly to hear what we had to say 
about it — to listen to propositions of settlement — to 
negotiate, if possible; for there are but two ways 
of settling such disputes — negotiation and arms; 
and as Mexico has chosen the latter, I, for one, am 



6 



determined she shall feel our might, and while we 
have her in our power compel her to .yield up the 
fullest measure of indemnity for all her past trans- 
gressions and enormities, and- make no accommo- 
dation with her until this is done. 

Sir, in my view of the duty of nations disputing 
about a doubtful right, we would have been per- 
fectly justified by declaring war against Mexico on 
her lefusal to receive our minister; for, sir, it is 
incumbent on the contesting nation to negotiate, 
and submit to an honorable compromise. If a na- 
tion will not do this, the other party to the contest 
has a right to resort to arms to compel an adjust- 
ment of the question, and though war does not 
decide the right, yet a victory usually puts it in the 
power of the successful party to enforce a compli- 
ance with the demand — at least this is so under- 
stood among civilized nations. 

Sir, the annexation of Texas was decided on by 
the people with their eyes open — in view of the 
threats of Mexico that she would declare war — 
and they were willing to have war rather than lose 
Texas; and the effort is vain, worse than useless, 
to attempt to make them believe that it is an un- 
just war or a war of aggression on our part. They 
have too much sense for this. No, sir, they are 
fully convinced of its justice, and it is, therefore, 
popular; and no declamation can drive them from 
the position they have taken, to support it with 
zeal and energy. In view of the facts and reasons 

C resented, no doubt can remain that the war was 
rought on by the act of Mexico, and so declared 
by an almost unanimous vote of both Houses of 
Congress on the 13th of May, 1846, by the law of 
that date in response to the message of the Execu- 
tive unfolding its causes, and ushered to the world 
in the usual mode by the proclamation of the 
President. 

Although, practically, war had commenced on 
the 24th "of April, 1846, by the attack of Mexico 
on a 'detachment of our troops, and again on the 
8th and 9th of May, and existed on those days as 
perfectly as the hostile acts of a foreign Power can 
cause it to exist — they not being predatory incur- 
sions, made without authority or without apparent 
cause, and with a view to plunder, but under- 
taken in pursuance of previous official notifications 
to our Government, that war should follow the 
annexation of Texas, which Mexico regarded as 
a revolted province, and to which her right had not 
been at all invalidated by the act of annexation, 
yet, so far as we were concerned — so far as our 
relations, nationally and individually, were in- 
volved, the war had its constitutional existence on 
the passage of the act of the 13th of May, 1846. 
That act changed our relations from peace to 
war — recognized the practical fact, that the act of 
Mexico had produced it — and we gave it our sanc- 
tion, and published our acknowledgment of it to 
the world in the usual mode. The phraseology of 
the act declaring it is nearly identical with that of 
the 18th of June, 1812, as Senators may see who 
v ill examine. Both proceeded from messages of 
the President detailing the causes, and both were 
announced to the world by proclamations; and, 
yielding to no one in my sense of the justice of the 
"war of 1812 with Great Britain, I am constrained 
to say, sir, that the justice of this loses nothing by 
the comparison, and as that war was denounced as 
"Jim Madison's war," as unjust and aggressive, 
so is this denounced as Mr. Polk's war, and with 



equal boldness its injustice proclaimed. The causes 
of the war of 1812 have been alluded to by the Sen- 
ator of Kentucky, [Mr. Underwood;] they were 
good causes, and such as should have prompted 
the nation, with one heart, to rise up and defend 
its rights; and as that had, so will, this have, a 
glorious issue. But, sir, our then enemy had not 
invaded our territory, had murdered none of our 
citizens, though they had forcibly impressed them 
in their naval service and flagrantly invaded our 
neutral rights. To bring on this war, and to add 
to the injury inflicted upon us by the robbery and 
murder of our citizens, Mexico invaded the soil of 
one of our sister States, threatening to subjugate 
it, defying alike our power and our right. Mex- 
ico commenced the war for conquest, avowedly to 
conquer Texas, of which she alleged she had been 
unjustly despoiled by us; and as she had repeat- 
edly declared she would do, she sought by force 
to recover it, and the whole of it, to the Sabine. 
She sought conquest — sought to rob us of one of 
the brightest gems in our national coronet — and 
though the issue could not be doubtful, yet the 
attempt was an indignity, adding insult to former 
injuries, and should have been met and repulsed, 
as it has been, by the power of the nation, and 
merited chastisement inflicted. Can Senators tell 
me for what purpose the Mexican army was on 
the bank of the Rio Grande, if it was not to carry 
out the oft repeated threat to recover Texas by 
force? It was for no other purpose, and its leader 
embraced the first favorable opportunity to make 
the invasion, and it has never been disavowed by 
the Government. Sir, as to the justice of this war, 
in view of all these things, it loses nothing in com- 
parison with that of 1812; and that war was de- 
nounced in terms equally violent and unmeasured 
with this. The party at that day arrayed against 
it when it was declared, was eager to get the nation 
into it years before Congress acted. Every effort 
was made to influence the minds of the people 
against Great Britain, and appeals of the most in- 
flammatory character, accompanied by attacks upon 
the Administration, of the want of spirit and patri- 
otism, were constantly made; and they asserted 
that it was so tame and spiritless, that it "could 
not be kicked into a war." As early as 1806, a 
leading Federal print of that day, declared that 
" the disputes between this country and England, 
'so long attended with rigor on her part, and in- 
'jury on ours, will not admit of much longer vain 
' complaints and harsh recriminations. They must 
' terminate shortly in the silence of war or peace." 
And again, in the same year, it declared, " they 
' [the Democrats in Congress] dare not resist all 
' aggressions alike, and assume the part of spirited 
' impartiality, as a magnanimous policy requires. 
' If war is called for by the insulted honor of the 
'country; if the cup of conciliation is drained to 
' the dregs, as they declare it to be, let the war be 
' declared; let an embargo be laid; adequate funds 
' provided; the strong arm of defence nerved and 
'extended; and a powerful navy ordered. In 
' these measures the whole country, from Georgia 
' to Maine, convinced of their propriety, will be 
' united." 

These extracts are from the Boston Centinel, 
then the leading Federal paper of the Union. 

A letter from Washington, of the same yea£ 
says: "Fear, prejudice, or some other dastardly, 
' principle, is continually crossing the path of out 



' rulers, and the loud call of our country, its com- 
' merce and spoiled merchants, for energetic pur- 
' poses, is unheard or disregarded. My fears are 
4 that the President's messages will only be sup- 

• ported by windy debates, or pen and ink re- 
4 ports." 

Although the " Centinel" had proposed an em- 
bargo, yet when it was laid in 1807, it said : "The 
4 embargo, which the Government has just laid, is 

* of a new and alarming nature. War, great as 
' the evil is, has less terror, and will produce less 
' misery, than an embargo on such principles." 

When — forbearance ceasing to be a virtue — war 
was declared, the Senate of Massachusetts resolved 
that " it was founded in falsehood, declared with- 

* out necessity, and its real object was extent of 
4 territory by unjust conquests, and to aid the late 
1 tyrant of Europe in his view of aggrandize- 
•ment." 

And the pulpit, where politics should not enter, 
became also a theatre in which its ministers sought 
to inflame the public mind against the administra- 
tion of their country, and place it in the wrong, in 
the sight of their powerful enemy and the world. 

One of them, highly distinguished by his posi- 
tion as the Rector of the Trinity church in Boston, 
in a discourse delivered in July, 1812, said: " This 
'is a war unexampled in the history of the world, 
4 wantonly proclaimed on the most frivolous and 

• groundless pretences against a nation from whose 
4 friendship we might derive the most signal ad- 
1 vantages, and from whose hostility we have 
4 reason to dread the most tremendous losses." 
Again: " Every provocation has been offered to 

• Great Britain on our part, and our resentment 
'has risen in proportion as she has shown a con- 
4 ciliatory spirit." 

And then, in his pious fervor, he exhorts his 
hearers thus: 44 Let no consideration whatever, my 
4 brethren, deter you at all times and in all places, 

* from execrating the present war. It is a war 
4 unjust, foolish, and ruinous." And, "as Mr. 
4 Madison has declared the war, let Mr. Madison 
4 carry it on." 

And, not to be outdone in the hostility here ex- 
hibited, another eminent divine, at Medford, the 
Rev. Dr. Osgood, endeavored to prevent his coun- 
trymen from enlisting in the service, and from 
loaning money to the Government, to carry on the 
war. Here is what he says: 

"If, at the command of a weak or wicked ruler, they un- 
dertake an unjust war, each man who volunteers his ser- 
vices in the cause, or loans his money for its support, or by 
his conversation, his writings, or any other mode of influ- 
ence, encourages its promotion, that man is an accomplice 
in the wickedness, loads his conscience with the blackest 
crimes, brings the guilt of blood upon his soul, and in the 
sight of God and pis law, is a murderer." 

Another one, a reverend doctor also, gave his 
hearers, if there were any that justified the war, 
this consolation: "Let every man who sanctions 
4 this war by his suffrage or influence, remember 
' that he is laboring to cover himself and hiscoun- 
4 try with blood. The blood of the slain will cry 
' from the ground against him." " And," he asks, 
44 how will the supporters of this anti-Christian 
4 warfare endure their sentence; endure their own 
4 reflections; endure the fire that forever burns — 
4 the worm which never dies — the hosannas of 
4 Heaven — while the smoke of their torments as- 
4 cends forever and ever." 

The press too, sir, that mighty engine, opera- 



ting with such wonderful power on the public 
mind, in the very midst of the war, when loans 
were necessary to carry it on, and our honor and 
our all at issue, was engaged in most unholy and 
unpatriotic efforts to embarrass the Government 
by attempting to deter capitalists from loaning their 
money; and I fear, sir, similar attempts may be 
made now, but I hope not. 

Here are two extracts from the leading Federal 
and anti-war papers of that day: 

" Will Federalists subscribe to the loan ? Will they lend 
money to our national rulers ? It is impossible." " What, 
then, if we now lend them money? They will not make 
peace ; they will still hanker for Canada ; they will assemble 
forces, and shed blood on our western frontier: mere pride, 
if nothing else, would make them do it. The motives which 
first brought on the war, will still continue it if the money 
can be had." "Any Federalist who lends money to Gov- 
ernment, must go and shake hands with James Madison, 
and claim fellowship with Felix Grundy. Let him no more 
call himself a Federalist and friend to his country ! He will 
be called by others, infamous !" 

" Our merchants constitute an honorable, high-minded, 
independent, and intelligent class of citizens. They feel 
the oppression, injury, and mockery with which they are 
treated by this Government. They will lend their money to 
retrace their steps; but none to persevere in their present 
course. Let every highwayman find his own pistols." 

The New York Evening Post, then a paper of 
the same stamp, Federal and anti-war, said: 

" We have only room this evening to say that we trust 
no true friend to his country will be found among the sub- 
scribers to the Gallatin loan." 

And the Boston Gazette said: 

" It is very grateful to find that the-universal sentiment is, 
that any man who lends his money to the Government at the 
present time will forfeit all claim to common honesty and com- 
mon courtesy among all true friends to the country." 

And, sir, to such an extent were their efforts 
carried, that the agents of the Government ap- 
pointed to receive subscriptions for the loan found 
it necessary to advertise that the names ofthe sub- 
scribers should be known only to themselves! 

But, sir, this conduct, so unjustifiable as it was, 
hardly equals that of the present day, as we may 
see by reference to some of the leading opposition 
journals in different parts of the United States, to 
say nothing of their great organ here at Washing- 
ton. I have in my hand, sir, some extracts from 
these papers, and will read them, regretting at the 
same time the necessity that exists for doing so. 

Here are extracts from leading opposition prints 
in Ohio: 

" The voice of lamentation and war, heard all over the 
country, from homes and firesides made desolate by the 
slaughter of lathers, and husbands, and brothers, is sweet 
music to the cars of the President and his friends, and they 
seem ambitious to sircll the chorus by increasing the number of 
victims."— Warren Chronicle. 

" They (the Mexicans) ARE IN THE RIGHT— WE IN 
THE WRONG. They may appeal in confidence to the 
God of Battles ; but if we look for ai"d to any other than hu- 
man power, it must be to the infernal machinations of 
hell, for thus far, it would seem, the DEVIL HAS GOV- 
ERNED AND GUIDED ALL OUR ACTIONS in the 
premises." — Xenia Torch Light. 

" We rejoice to see a large and respectable number ofthe 
Whig papers in this and other States taking decided ground 
against further appropriations by Congress of men and mo- 
ney for the Mexican throat cutting business. This is as it 
should be." — Ibid. 

" If Congress is opposed to the war — if that body is ef 
opinion that it is unjust, impolitic, and of dangerous tend- 
ency, NO DUTV CAN HE MOKE BINDING THAN 
THAT OF REFUSING THE MEANS TO PROSECUTE 
IT. The war is the result of usurpation, begun originally 
without consulting the war-making power." — Lebanon (O.) 
Star. 

44 No man, no people, looking upon the contest, can help 



8 



sympathizing with Mexico, and uniting in UTTERING 
A BITTER CONDEMNATION AGAINST OUR OWN 
GOVERNMENT."— Cincinnati Gazette. 

" A war against a neighboring republic, waged now avow- 
edly for the acquisition of territory, under the fruuilulent pre- 
text of seeking indemnity for alleged claims for injuries to 
the persons and property of our citizens." — Cin. Atlas. 

Here are some extracts from other papers of 
the same stamp in different parts of the United 
States: 

" None of the aggressors in Europe or Asia ever resorted 
to justificatory reasons which were so false and hypocritical 
as those alleged for our aggressions on Mexico." "The 
truth is, it (the war) was conceived in folly and wicked- 
ness, and commenced by a gross usurpation on the part of 
the President " — Kennebec (Me.) Journal. 

" Let every one keep aloof from this unrighteous, infa- 
mous, GOD ABHORRED war, and it will soon come to an 
end. The prospect is, that the Administration can get 
neither men nor money to carry on the war! Thank the 
Lord for all that." — N. H. Statesman. 

" To volunteer or vote a dollar to carry on the war is moral 
treason against the God of Heaven and the rights of man- 
kind." — Haverhill (Mass.) Gazette. 

" Talk of this war as we may, shout, rejoice, and illuminate 
your cities, it is still a war of injustice, of conquest, anil of un- 
mitigated evil; and it is high time that the virtuous and 
patriotic should speak out in condemnation of it." — Boston 
Sentinel. 

And on another occasion, speaking of Mr. 
Trist's negotiation: 

" It shows very clearly what the original object and pur- 
poses of the war were ; that is, in a word, that the great 
object was acquisition of new territory." 

" The Mexican war appears to he fast settling down to a 
mere matter of PL UNDER and MURDER. * * * 

« We think the war DISREPUTABLE TO THE AGE 
WE LIVE IN, and the country of which it is our boast to be 
called her ehildren." — Boston Atlas. 

"If there is in the United States a heart worthy of Ameri- 
can liberty, its impulse is TO JOIN THE MEXICANS, and 
to hurl down upon the base, slavish, mercenary invaders who, 
born in a republic, go to play over the accursed game of the 
Hessians on the tops of those Mexican volcanoes. // would 
be a sad and wofuljoy nevertheless to hear that the hordes under 
Scott and Taylor were every man of them swept into 
the next world ! What business has an invading army in 
thisl" — Boston Daily Chromotype. 

Here are the sentiments of some of them in New 
York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Kentucky, and 
Tennessee, all leading opposition papers, and I 
regret to say, sir, the last two from my own most 
patriotic State: 

"The whole world knows that it is Mexico which 
HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON', and that OUR PEOPLE 
ARE THE ROBBERS!!" "So far as our Government can 
effect it, the laws of Heaven are SUSPENDED, and those 
of hell established in their stead." "To the people of the 
United States ! Your rulers are precipitating you into a 
fathomless abyss of crime and calumny .'" — Neio York Tri- 
bune. 

" But the Whig party are unchanged in their view of this 
contest, (with Mexico.) Its origin was the annexation — its 
immediate cause, the unauthorized occupation of disputed ter- 
ritory. It is the President's war .'" " Mexico is the Poland 
of America." "If there were excuse for the war, there is 
none for the measure which opened it. But what excuse is 
found for the war itself?" — North American. 

" We may suppose that we are to carry on a war for con- 
quest, and that the halls of the Montezumas are to be occu- 
pied by THE INVADERS from the United States !" " Mex- 
ico has done infinitely more for herself in this war than the 
United States, by their Government, have done for them- 
selves." — U. S. Gazette. 

"What is it, then, that makes or allows Mr. Polk to sanc- 
tion this war, and all the outrages of which it is the conse- 
quence? Itisthis : Mr. Polk is a weak man. He was selected 
to be the Locofoco candidate for President because he was 
weak. It was this that recommended him to his party. It 
was this that elected him. It has been correctly said, that 
it is a curse upon a nation to have a weak-minded ruler. 
We are under the judgment of that curse." — Baltimore 
Patriot. 



"If there is any conduct which constitutes moral treason, 
it is an attempt to embark or to encourage the country in A 
WAR AGAINST GOD, as is the case in a war like that IK 
which we are now engaged." — LouUvi lie Journal. 

" TO VOLUNTEER, OR VOTE A DOLLAR TO CAR- 
RY ON THE WAR, is MORAL TREASON AGAINST 
THE GOD OF HEAVEN, and the rights of mankind !" 
— Nashville Gazette. 

" The fact is, the Mexican war was begun in a perfidious, 
rascally attempt of demagogues at President-making; and 
is now being carried out in the same spirit and under the 
auspices of men", who, to gain the spoils, have resorted 
to this INIQUITOUS SCHEME OF CONQUEST."— 
Chicago Journal. 

" We cannot possibly look favorably upon this war ; iu 
first act was A GROSS OUTRAGE UPON MEXICO. 
And can it be supposed by Mr. Polk, and his advisers, that 
an error so glaring, A CRIME SO UNPARDONABLE AS 
THIS MEXICAN WAR, can be whitewashed? We may 
well wish our country out of this UNRIGHTEOUS WAR." 
— Mount Carmel Register. 

I have not alluded, Mr. President, to the events of 
the last war — all which come to me as history, for 
I cannot say " quorum pars fui" — for the purpose 
of awakening old resentments and buried animosi- 
ties, nor with any unkind spirit to any of the actors 
in them, nor indeed with any personal allusion 
whatever; but I have thought it might be useful to 
the country to exhibit the perfect resemblance be- 
tween the spirit of the opposition of that day and 
of this, and as we know that not one of the mis- 
guided political fanatics of that time, however dis- 
tinguished he might have been for his talents and 
his virtues, has been able to stand before the 
people of this nation and claim and receive their 
confidence, their condemnation has been so over- 
whelming; so we may expect that those of this 
day, going as they do even beyond these their great 
prototypes, will as surely meet with a punishment 
equally withering and condign. Sir, there can be 
no mistake about this — no one of them can escape 
the blighting judgment of an offended and outraged 
people. As willing as we all are and should be, 
" to pardon something to the spirit of liberty," and 
to indulge in the freest discussion, yet, sir, when 
political fanaticism goes so far as we see it now, it 
is much to be apprehended, the judgment of pos- 
terity will distinguish it by another appellation. 
Their fate should be a warning to those who may 
be disposed to withhold supplies of men and money 
now; they should listen to the teachings of the past, 
learning wisdom from its experience. It is in vain 
to say, sir, that the war is unjust or unconstitu- 
tionally commenced, against all the facts to the 
contrary, and thus attempt to escape responsibility; 
they will be held to it, sir, and cannot shield them- 
selves by any such pretence. 

Mr. BADGER. Will the honorable Senator 
allow me, as he has several times alluded to some 
one who characterized this war as an unconstitu- 
tional war, to ask him if he referred to me. 

Mr. BREESE. I referred to the Senator of Ken- 
tucky immediately before you, [Mr. Underwood.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I beg to inform the hon- 
orable Senator, that my remark was, that it was 
an unconstitutional act by which the war was com- 
menced — the placing our troops on the Rio Grande. 

Mr. BREESE. I have shown, sir, I think, that 
was a proper act — one which he had a right to do. 
Suppose our Government had taken no precaution- 
ary measures for the defence of Texas against the 
threatened invasion of Mexico, having, as she had, 
a large force on and near that frontier, and breath- 
ing war in every missile from her functionaries, 



9 



would the President have discharged his duty to 
Texas ? Would our obligations to her have been 
fulfilled ? If one solitary inmate of the humblest 
cabin within it had been the victim of a Mexican 
inroad, and his little all given to the flames, or 
carried off as booty, and we not there with our 
protecting power, how loud, and deep, and bitter 
would have been the denunciations of those who 
now assail the Executive for this act intended 
alone for protection — alone to prevent invasion ? 
Sir, we were placed in such a situation as to com- 
pel the Government, by all its obligations of jus- 
tice, honor, and good faith, to take the position we 
did; and such, sir, is the honest judgment of the 
country. 

Well, sir, we are now in this war, our armies 
have gone "deep into the bowels of the land, "and 
it seems to me alike the dictate of duty and patriot- 
ism, to prosecute it with renewed vigor, and never 
conclude a peace until we have accomplished what 
is now, and has always been our object, repara- 
tion for the past and security for the future, no 
matter to what results the attempt may lead. 

All of us, I believe, sir, were willing, in ]846, 
and expected, that the war would be carried into 
the heart of Mexico. I recollect well, sir, a re- 
mark of the distinguished Senator of North Caro- 
lina, [Mr. Mangum,] who has not spoken to this 
bill, that if he could be satisfied that the war did 
exist — if there should be no disavowal on the part 
of the Mexican Government of the act of crossing 
the Rio Grande and attacking our troops, he would 
Tote, not only ten thousand, but fifty, or a hundred 
thousand men; and, if necessary, proceed to the 
plaza of the city of Mexico, and there dictate a 
peace. I believe it was well understood then, 
sir, at least such is the inference I draw from the 
remarks of that honorable Senator, that crossing 
the Rio Grande by Mexican troops would be an 
invasion of our territory, and that we must not 
only repel it, but carry the war with sufficient 
array, into the enemy's country, and this Senator 
expressed a most cheerful willingness to give the 
Government all the means, both of men and money, 
requisite for such a prosecution of the war; and, 
at the last session, the same patriotic spirit was 
manifested, for the supplies were then granted 
with very little opposition — only three, I believe, 
voting againt the bill to raise an additional military 
force, and but two against the loan bill. And why 
Senators should now refuse to support a measure 
like this, to reinforce the army, I am at a loss to 
conceive; nor can I reconcile it with the vote they 
have already given on an amendment proposed 
to it. 

Mr. MANGUM. The honoVable Senator refers 
to certain remarks which I am reported to have 
made, introductory to my vote upon the bill re- 
cognizing the existence of the war, and certainly 
an erroneous inference has been drawn from those 
remarks, or else I did not understand myself. 
The question was raised, whether we should cross 
the Rio Grande for the purpose of chastising our 
enemy; well, I never doubted, that in the case of 
aggression on their part, it was entirely proper for 
us to pursue them even to the heart of their coun- 
try; but an inference is not to be drawn from this, 
that I contemplated anything like conquest. This 
I have been utterly opposed to, as my recorded 
votes will show. At the time when we were called 
upon to recognize the existence of the war, we had 



heard of a collision having taken place, but we 
knew not how it originated, the documents were 
not before us to be read, and we were driven to a 
vote at once, and were obliged to vote in the dark; 
but on that occasion I did not doubt that we had a 
right to cross the Rio Grande, in order to chastise 
an aggression. That was my meaning; and if my 
remarks are correctly reported, they meant that, 
and no more than that, and, therefore, I repel the 
inference^ that I was desirous or willing to go into 
a career of conquest. 

Mr. BREESE. I will read, sir, an extract from 
the remarks of the honorable Senator, as reported 
in the Congressional Globe: 

" He and his friends are ready to grant whatever men and 
money were required in half an hour. And before the men 
raised could arrive at their destination, the requisite lime 
would have been afforded to determine, intelligently, and on 
authentic evidence, whether a state of war did, or did not 
exist. If it did, then Mr. M. should be unwilling to restrain 
the action of our forces to the left bank of the Rio del Norte. 
If we were actually at war, then he was under the impres- 
sion that our forces ought to cross the river, and that we 
should not stop till we had dictated peace at the capital of 
the Mexican empire. Let the fact be clearly ascertained, 
and then he was prepared to vote, not fifty thousand men 
only, but a hundred or a hundred and fifty thou.-and, if the 
Executive came to Congress and demanded that amount. 
He was ready to place the whole force of the country at his 
disposal, and that he should be enabled to conquer peace in 
the heart of the Mexican empire." 

The Senator does not deny that he is correctly 
reported, and I could not, of course, know what 
particular views the honorable Senator then enter- 
tained, any further than I can gather them from 
these remarks; but what are we to conclude was 
to be done by such a force as he was willing to 
vote, unless it was to overrun Mexico and conquer 
it, and in that way " conquer peace." 

Mr. MANGUM. I meant any force that might 
be necessary to chastise the enemy, and to dictate 
a peace. 

Mr. BREESE. But why chastise the enemy 
when they had done us no wronsr? If the Rio 
Grande was not the boundary of Texas, but be- 
longed to Mexico, then their troops perpetrated no 
Wong in crossing it; and it would be an outrage 
on our part to raise a force of one hundred thou- 
sand men to chastise Mexico for this, and carry 
our arms to her central city and there dictate a 
peace. But, sir, I cannot reconcile the opposition 
of Senators to this bill, on another ground. They 
have insisted, every one of them who has spoken 
to it, that our force in Mexico is amply sufficient 
for all legitimate purposes, and minute calculations 
have been made to prove it; yet, at the same time, 
they vote under the ayes and noes on the amend- 
ment of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, 
[Mr. Crittenden,] to give the President power 
to call for the services of thirty thousand volun- 
teers, three times as many men as this bill pro- 
poses. No doubt,.sir, there is good reason for this, 
and it may not be at all inconsistent. This vote was 
given before the passions had become excited by 
the collision of debate; and I doubt, not, sir, the 
Senators who voted for the amendment, voted in 
good faith, and with a determination to grant rein- 
forcements, the only strife seeming to be then, 
which was the best description of force. 

Mr. President, one thing is very certain, that we 
are in the midst of one of the most remarkable 
wars ever waged since the creation of the world, 
in every step of which, we, the victorious party, 
have held out the olive branch to the enemy; and 



10 



yet Senators say, not only on that side of the 
Chamber, but on this, that we can have peace 
whenever we will it. The Senator of Connec- 
ticut, [Mr. Niles,] declared this to be his belief, 
but failed, in my judgment, to bring a single fact 
in support of it. Do the facts and circumstances 
developed in the progress of this war show that 
peace — an honorable peace — is within our control? 
And does he or any other Senator doubt the sin- 
cerity of the President, and of his friends, when 
they say that they are desirous of peace on honor- 
able terms, bringing with it indemnity and secu- 
rity? 

Mr. NILES. The idea is correct in part, and 
wrong in part. I did not say it was in the power 
of this Governments make peace. I said it was 
in the power of this Government, and which they 
ought to exercise at the proper time, to put an end 
to hostilities. 

Mr. BREESE. Well, sir, that seems to me to 
be very much the same thing. Putting an end to 
hostilities on both sides — for otherwise there could 
be no end — and peace results as a necessary con- 
sequence; and therefore, it follows, that it is in 
the power of our Government, according to that 
Senator, to make a peace. But it was distinctly 
avowed by the Senator of New Jersey, [Mr. 
Miller,] that it was in our power to make a peace 
at any time. Why, sir, we could not, with all 
our efforts, prevent war — we sent a minister to dis- 
cuss the matters in difference between us, but he 
could not be heard — he was spurned, and the very 
thought of the thing produced a revolution, and a 
deposition of the then President. After our most 
brilliant victories, when our conquering army was 
at the gates of the capital, we had a commissioner 
with it, with full powers to make a peace, who 
was met by commissioners on the part of Mexico, 
and what was the result? ' Could we have done, 
ought we to have done, more than we have ? I put 
it to the Senator, and to others on his side of the 
Chamber, to say if they would have concluded a 
peace on the basis proposed by Mexico ? Would 
they have accepted the Mexican propositions, anjr 
one of them? Would they, for the sake of peace, 
disparage their country ? Do Senators recollect 
the Mexican propositions of the 6th of September 
last? What do they say to the twelfth and four- 
teenth articles? If I understood the honorable 
Senator of Maryland, not now in his seat, [Mr. 
Pearce,] he would have accepted them ; but I 
never would, and I doubt very much if there is a 
respectable number of the Opposition who would. 
Do Senators remember the twelfth article, requir- 
ing a guarantee from us, and that guarantee Great 
Britain, that we would not, at any time hereafter, 
no matter how necessary it might be for our secu- 
rity or welfare, annex any contiguous territory? 
And that, as provided in the fourteenth article, we 
should indemnify Mexico for all the injury our 
army had inflicted? And with the further stipu- 
lation, and mentioned for the first time in the his- 
tory of this controversy in Mexico, that the Nueces 
should be the boundary? 

1 Now, in all sincerity, I put it to Senators, would 
they consent to dismember Texas? Would they 
acknowledge a line as a boundary to which Mexi- 
co had never made claim ? Recollect that her pre- 
tensions to Texas were, and always have been, to 
the Sabine. Would any of them agree that we 
should so degrade ourselves and our country, as to 



give the guarantee of Great Britain, that we would 
not annex to our Confederacy any contiguous ter- 
ritory for all time to come? and above all, that we 
should indemnify Mexico for all the injuries she 
has received from her own aggressive acts ? Let 
the Senator stand forth and avow it. If Senators 
on the other side are sincere, however, they must 
agree to the last proposition; for if the war is un- 
just, as they asseverate it is, we are bound to make 
full reparation to Mexico. They are then bound, 
if they are sincere, (and who can doubt their sin- 
cerity ?) to go before the people of the United States 
on this, as one of the issues, at the coming fall 
election. They assert the war is unjust. If it is, 
must you not, on the restoration of peace, make 
full reparation ? Is not this a well established 
principle of public law ? Do not Grotius and Vat- 
tel,and all other publicists, recognize this princi- 
ple? And is it not a correct one? If our opponents 
are sincere in the belief so often expressed here, 
that the war is unjust, they must, in their effort to 
obtain the government, carry it out to its conse- 
quences. And, sir, if unfortunately they do get 
into power, and negotiate for peace, how can 
they escape the demands which Mexico will make 
for indemnity, based, as they would be, on their 
own admissions, that the war was unjust to her? 

Mr. President, at the outset of this war, and in 
its first year, it was distinctly avowed by the Ex- 
ecutive, and reiterated by his friends, that as it was 
brought upon us by Mexico, he had no other de- 
sire in waging it, than an honorable peace, includ- 
ing indemnity for the past injuries we had sustained 
at her hands, and such security against future ag- 
gressions, as Mexico might be enabled to give. 
And is it unreasonable, sir, that as the war is pro- 
tracted by Mexico, she refusing all offers of ac- 
commodation, that our demands should rise in 
proportion? In my own opinion, in the view I 
have taken of this matter, we would not be doing 
justice to our own country, by a show of too much 
lenity to Mexico, and that sheer justice would de- 
mand from her full indemnity also for the expenses 
of this war; and in her peculiar position — she not 
being able to provide any other indemnity — that 
the cession of the sovereignty and jurisdiction 
over a part of her territory, should be insisted 
upon as a sine qua non ; for I believe with the 
President, that the doctrine of no territory, which 
was broached here at the last session, and found 
so many advocates, is the doctrine of no indem- 
nity. In territory only can Mexico make repara- 
tion for the past, and afford security for her future 
good behavior; and although we are strong as a 
nation, yet, like the strong man who desires secu- 
rity against the attack of a lurking, cowardly as- 
sassin, so should we insist on it in such a line of 
boundary between us as will secure us against fu- 
ture aggressions. Yet, sir, it seems to be doubted 
by some, whether the President is willing to ac- 
cept a treaty ceding New Mexico and California 
as, a full equivalent for indemnity, and as affording 
that security he demands. I suppose, though I 
do not know it from him, that he would accept 
such a treaty, if he thought the Government of 
Mexico was so established as to give a reasonable 
assurance of its stability. None of us desire war 
for the sake of it, as peace is admitted to be our 
true policy; but on what terms this shall end, there 
is, and there must be, great difference of opinion. 
Our policy, sir, is, emphatically, peace with all na- 



11 



tions, but with none at the sacrifice of our national 
honor, the dearest possession of a nation. We 
have never, sir, since the birth of our nation, given 
occasion for war, not even with the barbarous 
tribes upon our borders. It is our pride to be able 
to say, that our whole history may be explored, 
and no single act of national injustice can be found 
upon its page — no blot of that kind upon our 
national escutcheon. We, sir, would have never 
disturbed our peaceful relations with Mexico, by 
any act of our own; she has brought the war upon 
herself, under a delusion that one of our sister 
States belonged to her; and resolving to possess it 
by force of arms, and refusing to hear our minis- 
ter upon the matters in dispute, sought to end 
them by the sword; and as she has appealed to 
that dread arbiter, she must abide its fortune. But 
war, sir, it is said, is full of evil; that this ought to 
be terminated at the earliest moment, some Sena- 
tors believing that the glory we have gained by it is 
sufficient indemnity for all our wrongs, and others 
deprecating any further advance of our army, as 
likely to bring about the result alluded to in the 
resolutions of the honorable Senator from South 
Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] and which he depre- 
cates so much. It is true, sir, war is an evil — a 
great evil, but it has also its advantages, and though 
the land may be, for a time, crushed by its armed 
heel, it is but preparing it for the reception of that 
seed whose fruit is commerce, science, the arts, 
and the highest and purest forms of civilization. 
Alexander, in opening Persia and India, by his 
sword, to the commerce of Greece, founded more 
cities than he conquered; and the world's whole his- 
tory since, shows most clearly that its permanent 
benefits far outweigh its transitory evils. The roads 
traced by the soldiery are soon followed by the 
merchant, greatly facilitating the commerce of 
ideas — favoring the sympathies of nations, and in 
the end will fraternize the whole human race. It 
is one of the great instruments of God's provi- 
dence, by which to accomplish such grand results; 
and can any Senator doubt that this most remark- 
able war will not greatly redound to the advantage 
of Mexico, securing to her, in the end, every 
blessing we so abundantly enjoy? 

It has been a war waged thus far, not against 
the people of Mexico, but emphatically against the 
army alone, with a view only to its destruction, 
and upon principles of the most enlightened hu- 
manity. Not one single act of oppression or in- 
justice has been committed by us — our path, as we 
have strode from victory to victory, has not been 
lighted by the flames of their dwellings, their de- 
fenceless women and children given to the sword, 
nor their cities sacked, nor churches defiled, nor 
fields laid waste. Though we have been terrible 
to the combatant, we have been generous to, him 
when vanquished — never forgetting, in the midst 
of the excitement, that the fairest chaplet victory 
wears is that which mercy twines. These, sir, 
are what make it a most extraordinary war; and 
the faithful historian, as he writes its varied and 
stirring events, will dwell with peculiar pleasure 
and'pride on this, its bright and most distinguish- 
ing feature. So humane and generous has been 
our conduct, that the people of Mexico, those who 
have most suffered by the oppression of the mili- 
tary tyrants, regard our armies rather as benefac- 
tors than as enemies; and if accounts can be relied 
on, are utterly opposed to their withdrawal. This 



has been the fruit of our policy, adopted at the out- 
set; for early in June, 1846, our general in com- 
mand issued a proclamation, prepared at the War 
Department here, in which the people of Mexico 
were assured that the war should not be waged 
against such of them as remained neutral, but 
against the army and the arbitrary rulers. They 
were reminded that their Government was in the 
hands of tyrants and usurpers, who had abolished 
the State governments, overthrown the Federal 
Constitution, deprived their people of the right of 
suffrage, destroyed the liberty of the press, des- 
poiled them of their arms, and reduced them to a 
state of absolute dependance upon the power of a 
military dictator. They were reminded, too, that 
the army and rulers extorted from them, by griev- 
ous taxation, by forced loans, and military seiz- 
ures, the money which sustained the usurper in 
power; and were told that we came to obtain rep- 
aration for the repeated wrongs and injuries those 
rulers had done to us; that we came to obtain in- 
demnity for the past and security for the future, and 
to overthrow the tyrants who had destroyed their 
liberties, but to make no war upon the people of 
Mexico, nor upon any form of government they 
might choose to select for themselves. They were 
promised, too, that their religion, their altars, and 
churches, the property of their churches and citi- 
zens, the emblems of their faith, and its ministers, 
should be protected, and remain inviolate. They 
were assured that we came among them as friends 
and as republican brethren; and a pledge was given 
to them, that whilst we were compelled to treat as 
enemies and overthrow those tyrants, who, whilst 
they had wronged and insulted us, had deprived 
them of their liberties, the people themselves, who 
remained neutral during the contest, should be pro- 
tected against them by our army. 

Now, sir, upon the proposition to withdraw the 
force we now have there, instead of augmenting 
it, either with or without a treaty, must not these 
pledges to the Mexican people be regarded ? We 
know the effect they have had upon them — we 
know that the better portion of them have offered 
no resistance to our advance — that they have sup- 
plied provisions to our troops, and guides, and 
means of transportation, and some have accepted 
office from our military governors; in short, they 
have extended to us every assistance in their power. 
Would it, then, be just to them to withdraw our 
protection from them, suffer their tyrants and op- 
pressors again to return to power, and they be- 
come, as they certainly would, a sacrifice to their 
friendship for us? But Senators say it would be 
magnanimous to withdraw — to prosecute the war 
no further — as Mexico lies prostrate at our feet, 
without the power of further resistance. 

I think, sir, that neither the honorable Senator 
of Tennessee, [Mr. Bell,] in the very able speech 
he delivered, and who gave it as his advice that 
we should make the best peace we could, and flee 
the country, nor the distinguished Senator of South 
Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] in his proposition to 
leave the central parts of Mexico, and retire to an 
indemnity line, could have recollected these pledges, 
or duly considered the obligations we are under 
arising out of them. It seems to me, it would be 
the height of injustice to leave these people, whom 
we have allured to our support, a prey to those 
tyrants, who must succeed our power, and whose 
revenge can only be satiated by the blood of those 



12 



our absence will leave defenceless. v We owe that 
protection to them we have promised; and any 
treaty we may make with that Government should 
contain a stipulation for it, as nothing short of this 
would be just. 

As I remarked on another occasion, sir, retiring 
to a line, in the event of a refusal to treat or in any 
event, would not end the war — it would make it 
interminable, be quite as expensive as a more vig- 
orous policy, and be the very course the military 
rulers of Mexico would most desire we should 
adopt, for it necessarily retains them in power, 
and more than all, it would be an invitation to any 
European Power (and it is thought one or more of 
them have designs of this nature) to take posses- 
sion of that part we abandon, involving us, per- 
haps, at some future time, in a bloody and destruc- 
tive war with them. Our withdrawal would be a 
proclamation to them, that in assuming our line, 
we abandon all claim to any part of Mexico south 
of it, and they would not be slow, I think, sir, to 
profit by our folly. But, sir, what prospect is 
there of a treaty? Have we any certain knowledge 
of the existence of any government in Mexico, 
possessing such a share of public confidence and 
so organized as to make one that will be observed? 
As at present advised, with the knowledge I have 
of the condition of affairs there, I should place but 
little value upon any treaty that might be patched 
up, and I would regard it as a most unfortunate 
event if one was entered into, which should stipu- 
late, as a concurrent act, for the withdrawal of our 
troops from the interior and the city. Sir, the whole 
history of that country admonishes us to be cau- 
tious in our intercourse with it, and to run no haz- 
ard which we have the power to avoid. Sir, if a 
President could be deposed merely for consenting 
to receive a minister from this Government pre- 
paratory to a treaty, what may we not expect will 
be the fate of him who shall make a treaty at all 
favorable to us, and our protection withdrawn? If 
it is not acceptable to the military chieftains and 
the clergy, a pronunciamento will follow — then the 
grito — then the march to the capital, and the reir.s 
of government forcibly assumed. The function- 
aries who have negotiated the treaty, will become 
fugitives from their country, and scenes of butch- 
ery and violence in quick succession, and with 
aggravated horror, will be again enacted. 

I do not believe, sir, that any good could result, 
but much evil, from any treaty we might now be 
able to make. I have no confidence that it would 
be observed a day, and if not, the work we have 
accomplished would have to be renewed, more 
blood spilt and more treasure expended, to restore 
us to the favorable position we now occupy. Any 
authority now existing in Mexico is but the bub- 
ble of the moment, which the first breath of popu- 
lar clamor will suddenly destroy. 

There is, sir, another difficulty in the way, which 
deserves some notice. There is a strong party in 
Mexico, called the Puros, or Republicans, who 
are determined, if my information is correct, that 
there shall be no peace with us, if they can prevent 
it, and they are active, intelligent, and united. 
They see in this war the approaching realization 
of their fondest hopes — the enjoyment of that lib- 
erty of thought, speech, and the press, for which 
they have so long struggled, and which can only 
be secured by our dominion. For this blessing 
they are ready and anxious to surrender their na- 



tionality — to merge it in our own, and thus relieve 
themselves from oppression, from tyrannical ex- 
actions, from plunder, and from all those accumu- 
lated ills their miserable government of misrule has 
enforced and encouraged. They see, in our ad- 
vance, the dawnings of a brighter day for them 
and their children, and in glad anticipation behold 
our azure studded with their stars. They see no 
refuge but in our free institutions, no shield but 
our power, and desire no nationality but that which 
an union with us will give them. This party, sir, 
may submit for a time, but will not agree, and if 
they obtain power, true to their original design, 
they will become embroiled with us to effectuate 
it. They have always been, and are now, the 
most clamorous for war, and will oppose any ac- 
commodation which withdraws our army, for its 
continuance there they believe, and I believe, will 
produce the result they desire. And this, sir, is 
the opinion of the distinguished Senator of South 
Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] as I gather from his 
speech on the resolutions he has introduced, and 
discussed with such great ability. He deprecates 
a line of policy which shall result in conquering 
Mexico, with a view to incorporate it into this 
Union, or to hold it as a province, and maintains 
that it would not only be inconsistent with the 
avowed objects for which the war has been pros- 
ecuted, but a departure from the settled policy of 
the Government, in conflict with its character and 
genius, and in the end subversive of our free and 
popular institutions. 

The avowed objects of the war which we de- 
clared to exist by the act of Mexico wn3 to obtain 
redress of wrongs, a permanent and honorable 
peace, and indemnity for the past and security for 
the future; and if they cannot be obtained in any 
other way than by the conquest of Mexico, and 
incorporating it into the Union, or holding it as a 
province, such a result would be in harmony with 
those objects. Nor would it be contrary to the 
spirit and genius of our Government, nor against 
its settled policy, to conquer, in a defensive war, 
any country, and annex it, which might be 
thought, from its contiguity, to be necessary to 
our own safety. The power "to declare war" 
carries with it all its consequences, of which terri- 
torial conquest is one; and our policy in 1812 was 
to conquer Canada, and if we had been success- 
ful, after having made the most strenuous efforts 
to that end, and on the return of peace, it had been 
relinquished to us, no doubt it would have been 
annexed to us, and I think the day is not distant 
when that event shall transpire. How the annex- 
ation of Mexico to our Union would tend to sub- 
vert our free institutions, I cannot discover. The 
argument of the Senator on that point has failed 
to convince me. I have taken a different view of 
the people of that country, and I think I see in 
them attributes and elements quite susceptible, by 
proper appliances, of high improvement. Could 
they be brought under the happy influences of 
such a Government as our own, having all their 
rights, civil and religious, protected, what might 
we not hope from them? TITe Indian population, 
numbering about four millions, are reputed to be 
very gentle and quiet in their dispositions, apt to 
learn, and willing to improve, and, if not possessed 
of all the manlier virtues, have at least those which 
fully ensure their cheerful acquiescence to our con- 
trol and rapid advancement under it. Take the 



population as a whole, and there is not a people 
on the globe more capable of advancement in the 
arts and sciences, and of assuming all the forms 
of the highest civilization. They came out of their 
revolution with a reputation only excelled by our 
own; and with the 3ame advantages we have pos- 
sessed, who can say they would not now rival us 
in all that contributes to national renown? But 
the Senator says, no instance can be found of any 
race, save the Caucasian, which has established 
and enjoyed self-government and free institutions; 
but he does not say no other race can be prepared 
for it. All other races have always been oppress- 
ed — are generally ignorant — have no just appre- 
ciation of liberty, and are for the most part unciv- 
ilized. I do not suppose, sir, rhe Mexicans are 
at this time fitted for an equal union with us; and 
much is to be done before they will be. By the 
infusion of our own population among them, (and 
they are now there in great numbers, according to 
the Senator of Delaware, Mr. Clayton,) together 
with emigrants from Europe, who will not be slow 
to avail themselves of the unsurpassed advantages 
such a country enjoys, a gradual change in their 
manners, customs, and language, will ensue. Ed- 
ucation will be diffused among the masses; speech, 
the press, and religion will be free, and high opin- 
ions of themselves speedily generated; and consid- 
ering the rapidity of past events, the aids to 
knowledge, and for its rapid spread, which the 
world now possesses, the period of their pupilage 
will be of short duration. Sir, it has been alike 
our pride and boast, that our institutions were 
better calculated to elevate the masses than any 
others which have yet existed, and we feel it to 
be true; and it cannot be that it is the decree of 
Heaven that none but the white race shall en- 
joy them. It has been the abiding hope of the 
philanthropist, that in God's good time all na- 
tions should enjoy them, and the down-trodden 
millions of both hemispheres be exalted by their 
agency. There is nothing, sir, in the history of 
that beautiful country, or in the character of its 
people, to discourage the belief that they can, in 
a very short time, be brought to a condition qual- 
ifying them for admission into this great American 
family, adorning and strengthening it by a com- 
mingling and full development of all those grand 
and mighty elements they possess, and thus fulfill 
her own and our happy destiny. And, sir, it is 
the fervent wish and hope of her most eminent 
citizens and patriots, that this war may accelerate 
it; and, if "coming events cast their shadows 
before," may it not be regarded as its certain pre- 
cursor? In my musings upon this subject, Mr. 
President, I have been cheered by the hope, that 
if I did not, my children would live to see lhat 
day when our institutions shall extend over the 
whole of this portion of our continent, all to be 
bound by one common ligament, and all to run 
one common career of honor, happiness, and re- 
nown? And, sir, why should we be alarmed at 
this contemplation? History, it is said, admon- 
ishes us that extension of dominion by territorial 
acquisition proved the downfall of the ancient re- 
publics; but, sir, were they fashioned like ours? 
Were they not, from their very nature, incapable 
of extension? And is there no difference of con- 
dition between us and them? They had not the 
press, nor the compass, nor the steam-engine — 
none of those great instrumentalities which, wielded 



by freemen, are to revolutionize the world. They 
worshipped Liberty, and sacrificed to her as to an 
idol. We regard her as an active, moving spirit, 
penetrating all the avenues of life, and cheering 
and stimulating man in his progress. Sir, our 
liberty can be preserved only by progress. Being 
stationary it stagnates, and in that condition the 
flame will expire. It is by action alone — by cease- 
less, constant action — we can preserve it. Let us 
expand to our true and proper dimensions, and 
our liberty will be eternal; for, in the process, it 
will increase in strength, and the flame grow 
brighter, whilst it lights a more extensive field. 
Does any Senator believe our attachment to lib- 
erty would have been any stronger than it is now, 
or that we would have been more powerful and 
happy, had our Confederacy been confined within 
the Atlantic coast and the range of the Alleganies? 
Would any one of them willingly restore to their 
former owners Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, or 
surrender either without a deathly struggle? I 
apprehend not. Our history shows, thus far, that 
there is no danger in our extension. Our form of 
government is peculiarly fitted for this — it has a 
peculiar aptitude for expansion, a principle which 
no other Government ever did possess, and it is 
one of its greatest excellencies. Will any Senator 
deny that the new States have contributed new 
vigor to our system, and increased strength to our 
circle? Have any symptoms of disaffection to the 
Union been observed in any of them? Has any 
spirit of insubordination or of restlessness under 
the ties which bind them, ever been manifested by 
any of them? No, sir, it is not in them where 
man enjoys the largest liberty, only restrained by 
laws he makes himself, that emeutes, riots, and 
rebellions occur, but it is among a crowded popu- 
lation, in pent up masses, easily excited by col- 
lision, with no extended field of action to arouse 
their energies, and no attainable objects before 
them to guide them aright. 

Let but Congress confine itself to its own proper 
functions, each State exercising its own undoubted 
powers within its own limits, managing its o\kti 
legitimate concerns in its own way, without the 
unauthorized interference of Congress, no reason 
can be given why our Union should not be co- 
extensive with this portion of the American conti- 
nent. We want no rival republics here, for they 
may become inimical, rendering it necessary to 
maintain standing armies to defend against their 
aggressions. If all was united in one harmonious 
whole, such defences would not be required. 

By the agency of steam operating upon the boat, 
the railroad car, and the press, combined with that 
great American invention — the greatest of the age 
and of the world — the magnetic telegraph, which 
can literally almost 

" Waft a sigh from Indus to the pole," 

we will be more compact, and in more constant and 
harmonious intercourse than the old thirteen States 
were at the period of the adoption of our Consti- 
tution. With the seat of the common or General 
Government at some central point, with railroads 
and telegraphs radiating from it as from the centre 
of a circle to its circumference, and with the press 
as free as the air of heaven, it matters not how 
large the number of States may be. 

But it is said, sir, this war is bringing the nation 
into debt, and the further we advance the more 



14 



will it be augmented, and the greater burden do we 
throw upon those who come after us. To be sure, 
sir, all wars create debts. The expenses of a war 
are not expected to be borne by the ordinary rev- 
enues of peace, but by borrowing money; and if 
we cannot replace it in our generation, the one 
which succeeds us must do so. Arguments of this 
kind weigh equally strong against every effort at 
national defence, and if yielded to, will place our 
nation at the mercy of its foes. If we do create a 
large debt of one hundred millions, over and above 
our revenues, for posterity to pay, we will leave 
them increased means with which to pay it. What 
is such a debt to us, or to them? If the calcula- 
tions of the Secretary of the Treasury are correct, 
and I believe they are, and the present tariff is not 
interfered with, we will have, in less than ten years, 
quite fifty millions of dollars annually, from duties 
alone, to say nothing of the receipts from the pub- 
lic lands, the receipts from which this fiscal year 
will fully equal his expectations, and if a proper 
graduation and preemption law is enacted, will be 
greatly augmented. Reducing, after the war, our 
expenses to twenty or twenty-five millions annu- 
ally, we may have a large sinking fund, by which, 
in less than ten years, the whole debt will be paid 
off. Our credit was never in a better condition 
than it now is, and promises to continue to be. 
Our six per cent, stocks are above par; and if we 
enter the market for more money, we will find the 
loanable capital, so far from being exhausted, at our 
command in abundance. The debt of the last war, 
amounting to near a hundred millions of dollars, 
was soon discharged, without affecting injuriously 



any of the great interests of the country, and so 
will this be. 

In this view, sir, the acquisition of Mexico, with 
its unparalleled powers of production, yielding 
every article of luxury and necessity, save one, 
that ministers to the wants or pride of man — whose 
revenues can be made, under wholesome laws, 
and with proper management, to produce annually 
one hundred millions of dollars, and with mineral 
wealth from which the world now draws a great 
part of its supply, and those resources to be further 
developed by our enterprise and skill — what can we 
not expect when time shall have performed upon 
her its gentle yet potent and effective office? 

As I believe, sir, there are but two alternatives — 
either to flee the country, or to hold on to our acqui- 
sitions, the result of which may be the final ab- 
sorption of Mexico, I have not hesitated to declare 
for the latter, being well satisfied that great ultimate 
good to us, to her, and to humanity, is to flow 
from it. 

The honorable Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Calhoun] has said, sir, that Mexico is to us 
as a dead body, and he is anxious to cut the cord 
that binds us to the corpse. Sir, I prefer taking 
her to our side, and imparting to her some of our 
own vitality; and with her fair proportions and 
most beautiful developments, by its magic influ- 
ence, she will start again into life and being. If 
she be dead — if the light is out — we have " the 
Promethean heat that can that light relume." 

Having made, sir, these desultory remarks, I 
will now conclude, by thanking the Senate for their 
patient and polite attention. 



/ 



\ 



.p <* 



) 




/fr 4^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 446 876 9 1 



/ 4 » 
arm** 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




